[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:24:07 -0400
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> That works too, but doesn't warrant rants about how you haven't
> learned how to use the fucking thing :)
> 

It's *volume* controls, there doesn't need to be *anything* to learn.

> >
> > Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're *aware*
> > of - who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all
> > together, and I think you may be surprised just how much complexity
> > there is.
> 
> 1. ringer volume affects all sounds except for music/video/games
> 2. Silent switch will ringer volume to 0 for all sounds except for  
> find-my-iphone and alarm clock
> 3. If playing a game/video/music, the volume buttons affect that
> volume, otherwise, they affect ringer volume.
> 
> Wow, you are right, three whole rules.

And each one with exceptions, the rules as a whole aren't particularly
intuitive.

And then there's the question of what rules you forgot. I can think of
one right now:

4. If you're in the camera app then the volume button takes a picture
instead of adjusting volume.


> That's way more than 1.  I stand corrected :)
> 

Now compare that to a normal device:

1. The volume control adjusts the volume.

Gee, how horrible to have one trivially intuitive rule and no
exceptions.

Bottom line, they took something trivial, complicated it, and people
hail them as genius visionaries.

> > Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable music
> > player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% predictable
> > and trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to
> > think about it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that
> > the ijunk has various other uses besides music is immaterial: It
> > could have been simple and easy and worked well, and they instead
> > chose to make it complex.
> >
> > Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an
> > *option* to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to
> > configure their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be
> > very "Apple", now would it?
> 
> I detect a possible prejudice against Apple here :)
> 

Heh :) But yea, I *do* take a lot a issue with Apple, partly
because as a business they make MS look like the EFF, but also largely
because I've dealt with their products, and I really *do* find them to
be awful overall.

> >
> > Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
> >
> > You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is
> > exactly why I hate it ;)
> 
> No, it's nowhere near the same level.  I have Win 7, had it from the
> day of its release, and while it's WAY better than XP,

Heh, yea I had a feeling. Like I said, Win7 is very Mac-like as far as
windows goes. I find it interesting that while I absolutely can't stand
Win7 (at least without *heavy* non-standard configuring and some
hacks), Mac people OTOH tend to see it as a big improvement over XP.
It's Microsoft OSX.


> For instance, when I want to turn my Mac off, I press the power
> button, shut down, and when it comes back up, all the applications I
> was running return in exactly the same state they were in.  This is
> not hibernation, it's a complete shutdown.  Every app has built in
> it, the ability to restore its state.  This is because it's one of
> the things Mac users expect.
> 
> You can't do that with Windows or even Linux.  Ubuntu has tried to
> make their UI more mac like, but because the applications are not
> built to handle the features, it doesn't quite work right.
> 

Well, we can make any OS look good by picking one nice feature.

And personally, I actually like that shutdown serves as a "close all".
There's a number of programs that do have settings for roughly "when
starting, resume wherever I left off last time". I always end up
turning that off because it just means I usually have to close whatever
it auto-opened anyway. When I close/exit/etc something, it's generally
because I'm done with that task. So auto-resumes just get in
my way. OS is the same thing: If it auto-resumed everything, then I
would just have to go closing most of it myself. Makes more work for
me in it's quest to be "helpful".

> >> The *screen* wasn't broken, it's just the plastic starts
> >> deteriorating. Jobs famously had an early iPhone prototype with a
> >> plastic screen and pulled it out at a designer meeting and yelled
> >> at them saying "this fucking thing is in with my keys, it's
> >> getting all scratched up!  we need something better."  That's when
> >> they started thinking about using the glass screens.
> >>
> >
> > Yea, he never did grow up, did he? Still throwing tantrums all the
> > way up to, what was he, like 60?
> >
> > And he never did learn about such things as "covers", did he?
> 
> Interesting that's what you see as the defining point of that
> story :)

It's a story that always did stike me as odd: Here we have a grown
man (one who was *well known* to be unstable, asinine, drug-soaked and
frankly, borderline megalomaniacal) that's going around throwing
tantrums, and largely because he doesn't understand "cover" or "case"
or what obviously happens to plastic when you bash keys against it, and
it gets interpreted by millions as "Wow, look how great he was!" I don't
get it.

> Especially considering your calm, controlled statements
> about Apple products...
> 

Heh, well, like I said my hatred for Apple and Apple products comes
from having used them and been around them. I actually *liked* my OSX
machine when I first got it. And then it, and the whole Jobs culture,
and the way Apple runs their business, successfully turned me against
Apple. And now I have this iPhone which, while having even been *useful*
when out-of-town when I first got it - due to it essentially being a
wirelessly internet-connected PDA - everything else about it just makes
me want to smash it into a concrete wall nearly every time I use it.
And I've never had that temptation from *any* other device before (hard
as that may be to believe ;) )